or, more precisely, it’s not just willpower. At SciTechDaily there’s an article about how Stanford researchers have found that weight loss is more complicated than generally assumed:

Strictly following a diet— either healthy low-carb or healthy low-fat — was what mattered for short-term weight loss during the first six months. But people who maintained long-term weight loss for a year ate the same number of calories as those who regained weight or who did not lose weight during the second six months.

Basically,

1. The “simple thermodynamics” (weight loss = calories consumed – calories expended) is wrong.
2. The same diet doesn’t work equally well for everybody.
3. Willpower doesn’t explain the differences, either.

Researchers were able to predict who would maintain their weight loss based on a few “biomarkers”.

It’s always gratifying when they can determine experimentally what you’ve been saying all along.

I might mention that BMI is similarly garbage or, more fairly, it’s a first order approximation at best.

I was astonished by this article by Michael Dhar at LiveScience:

Evolution has produced stunningly complex features, from neuron-studded octopus arms to the mammalian ear. Can evolution ever go “backward,” though, reverting complex creatures to previous, simpler forms?

In so-called regressive evolution, organisms can lose complex features and thus appear to have evolved “back” into simpler forms. But evolution doesn’t really go backward in the sense of retracing evolutionary steps, experts say.

“The chances that the same tape [of evolutionary changes] would be … reversed in the same way is highly improbable,” William R. Jeffery(opens in new tab), a biologist at the University of Maryland, told Live Science.

for the simple reason that the question is meaningless. The only “direction” that evolution has is towards greater fitness with an organism’s environment as the quote that concludes the piece says:

“Evolution is always progressive in that it’s selecting for features that improve the fitness of the individuals in which that variation is being expressed,” Okamura said.

There are examples of “regressive evolution” other than those in the article. Whales, dolphins, and seals, for example. Anteaters and pangolins.

One thing we might consider is that our notion of intelligence and opposable digits as complexity is basically just an assumption. There is little evidence that the human species is evolving towards big-headed brains with tiny vestigial bodies. Our species might as well lose intelligence as gain it, depending on the environment.

At Wired Gaia Vince argues that climate change will drive a mass migration the “global south” to the developed countries of the north:

The global map of today’s climate impacts, and those modeled for the coming decades as temperatures continue to rise in this century, makes it clear that people will have to retreat from large swathes of the tropics, which will become unlivable for at least parts of the year, from coastlines as sea levels rise and weather becomes more extreme, and from low-lying islands. Infrastructure adaptations will not save us, and agriculture will become impossible in places which are now breadbaskets supplying millions of people. Where will they move to? Largely, northwards, to expanded cities, and entirely new cities that will need to be built on the habitable fringes of Europe, Asia, and North America. Managed well, this migration could supply a much-needed population boost to countries with worker shortages due to low birth rates, and it could help reduce poverty in some of the worst-hit nations. Managed badly, it will be a catastrophic upheaval with huge loss of life.

I agree that the mass migration from south to north is inevitable but I don’t think you need to resort to anthropogenic climate change to get there. Climate change for any reason whatever is sufficient and, frankly, the climate is always changing. The enormous and growing populations in the “global south” are moving to Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand whatever we do to reduce carbon emissions. There are many reasons for the move. The utter dysfunction of their governments resulting in weak economies. The perception that there are jobs and/or government handouts to be had here.

We are likely to see considerable migration from Central and South America for the foreseeable future while Europe is likely to see immigration from Africa and the Middle East. A little back-of-the-envelope calculation shows the economic burden that will create. My estimates suggest that if just 10% of Central and South America’s children and their parents come here it will increase our government spending by about a half trillion per year.

The graph above is from Visual Capitalist. Notice that Illinois is one of the few states whose main source of electricity releases no greenhouse gasses. Some would say that hydroelectricity fits that definition, too, but it is incorrect. The standing ponds behind dams emit considerable amounts of methane, considerably more problematic than carbon dioxide.

There are a couple of different ways of interpreting Paul Rogers’s piece at openDemocracy urging Ukraine to the negotiating table with Russia:

It seems possible that the view from Washington now is that any threat of escalation by Putin would be a bluff. Russia’s status has been so diminished by the failures of recent months that even a nuclear threat would be widely condemned by many countries, including supporters of Russia, especially in the Global South. The threat itself would be an admission of abject failure, damaging Russia’s position in the world so much that it would be better to sue for peace, starting with a ceasefire which would be widely welcomed.

The problem is that this may be wrong and a serious misreading of Putin’s world view. After all, western states do not have a good track record of predicting the course of major conflicts – witness Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The more that wise minds can argue the case for a negotiated end to the war short of full victory for either side the better.

One of them is that it’s a cowardly caving in to Russia. Another is that it is an acknowledgement not just of reality but of how much we don’t know.

To my eye what is happening at present is that both sides but particularly the Ukrainians are escalating. I doubt that will have the desired effect. Don’t expect Russia to surrender Crimea at all let alone lightly. And don’t expect Putin to be replaced by a friendlier regime—it will be the opposite if anything.

At the National Interest John Austin and Elaine Dezenski claim that Germany is repeating its error in trading with Russia with China now:

For similar reasons, some German politicians now seek to forge new economic ties with China. German chancellor Olaf Scholz visited China in November in order to “further develop” cooperation between the countries—efforts that led to China’s purchase of 140 Airbus airplanes.

By tying itself to China, however, Germany risks making its Russia mistake all over again. It is doing so at a time when tensions are heating up between Beijing and the West. Moreover, Germany should be investing in unprecedented transatlantic cooperation and pan-democratic unity in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine, and as fears grow over a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

The reason the Russian gas supply has stopped was predictable but not inevitable. It occurred because Russia is a country that a single person controls—a person capable of horrific and violent blunders. Indeed, reliance on Russian gas was a vulnerability because Russia is non-democratic and capricious. Today, the country is engaged in the megalomaniacal war of one man who has unified much of the democratic world in opposition.

By turning to China, however, BASF and other German companies risk another major miscalculation—allowing the allure of cheaper energy to bind them to another autocratic and capricious regime controlled largely by one man. Germany, which enjoys alliances throughout Europe and North America, should recognize the risks. Xi Jinping’s saber-rattling in the Taiwan Strait could be a sign of things to come. China is capable of making the same mistake as Russia and paying even more significant consequences. China’s economy is entangled with many of its Western trading partners.

On top of that, German engagement with China always carries the substantial risks of technology theft and knowledge transfer—a risk that some scholars have described as Beijing’s “weaponization of cooperation.”

I think they’re dreaming. I see no prospect whatever that Germany will “decouple” from China. Chimany is stronger than Chimerica ever was. China is Germany’s largest trading partner and at present Germany, unlike most other countries in the world particularly the U. S., runs a trade surplus with China. That varies from year to year but Germany’s record has been pretty favorable to it. It is absolutely possible that Germany’s economy would collapse without Chinese trade. The risk averse Germans will not do it.

I thought you might be amused by this Chicago Tribune editorial drawing an analogy between President Joe Biden and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. On Biden’s part there’s this:

On Tuesday, Biden said that the discovery of the stash was a surprise to him but he remained woefully mum about a second trove of classified documents that already had been found in his Wilmington, Delaware, garage, apparently next to his gas-guzzling Corvette.

But by Thursday, as the White House should have predicted, that news (along with that of another document found in a storage room) was out, too, and Attorney General Merrick Garland was holding a hastily arranged news conference and announcing a special counsel and an investigation.

The issue was toxic for Biden, of course, because Democrats had been lambasting former President Donald Trump for absconding with classified documents, implying they would never do such a thing.

while on Lightfoot’s part there’s this:

Meanwhile, in Chicago, WTTW reported on Wednesday that an unspecified number of Chicago Public Schools teachers had received an email from Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s reelection campaign to their work addresses, asking them to recruit CPS students to help with the mayor’s effort to stay mayor.

The email, signed by a campaign staffer named Megan Crane, said participants in the “externship program” would be expected to volunteer 12 hours per week to the Lightfoot campaign and that students could expect to earn “class credit.”

This gaffe boggles the mind. Apparently, the campaign convinced itself that since no one was being coerced, and that the email addresses were generally accessible, this was a legitimate ask. It must further have convinced itself (how, bamboozles us) that the mayor’s rivals would not eventually find out about and pounce upon this issue.

And it must have made peace with the clear conflict of interest and ethical violation in “asking” either public school teachers or their students to “volunteer” to help their big boss retain her power.

Just like the White House, the Lightfoot campaign hemmed and hawed when asked for comment, only eventually coming to terms with the need for a full-throated mayoral apology and an assertion that this will not happen again. By Thursday, Lightfoot had a monster distraction on her hands, an escalation involving similar campaign emails also sent to City Colleges of Chicago, and two likely watchdog investigations to anticipate, potentially keeping the damaging story alive.

What’s the connection? As a piece at Reason.com put it, “shoddiness, carelessness, and hypocrisy”. They conclude:

Like Biden, Lightfoot was attacking much worse behavior than her own. But also like Biden, the mayor was caught on her own petard.

All either of them can do is apologize, vow to do better, and move on.

Frankly, I doubt that an apology will be forthcoming from either. Once you rise to a certain level of elective office apologies come hard. Mayor Lightfoot has already blamed an aide; I expect President Biden to do the same.

I don’t drive a lot these days but when I’m running my errands I avoid listening to the news or music. I listen to old radio programs. Right now I’m listening to a show called Bold Venture of which I was unaware until recently.

Bold Venture ran from 1951 to 1952 and stars Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. They portray Slate Shannon, owner of a Havana hotel and a boat, the Bold Venture and his ward/girl friend Sailor Duval. The characters are materially the same as those in their first movie together, To Have and Have Not. There’s also a character who’s a sort of proxy for Sam in Casablanca, calypso singer King Moses, memorably portrayed by the great Jester Hairston. The show’s music was by David Rose.

Humphrey Bogart is great as Slate Shannon. Lauren Bacall is, as usual, Lauren Bacall as Sailor Duval. If you like their chemistry together, you’ll like the show.

There are 57 of the episodes extant. At a half hour per program that’s 28.5 hours of Bogart and Bacall—significantly more all of their movies put together. Bogart and Bacall received $5,000 a week for their performances in the program. No wonder they made it.

I’m not particularly interested in many of the stories occupying the opinion pages these days but what I am interested in is the common thread that runs through them: most are missing the actual story.

Classified documents. All I have to say about the present kerfuffle is that while legally there may be a distinction between Trump’s handling of classified documents and Biden’s handling of classified documents politically there is no difference. The press and opinion writers are missing the story. The real story is twofold. First, a part that would be comical if it weren’t so tragic. The routine classification of documents by the federal government means that a document being classified is no particular distinction—it’s ordinary. No wonder the president doesn’t remember having these documents. It’s not that his memory is failing but that having classified documents in his possession is so routine as to leave no impression. Isn’t that the opposite of what classification should do? The other part is, as usual, the Congress’s fault. The Congress was, has been, and is unwilling to codify the process for a transition of power into law. The last three presidencies have made it clear that there really should be a process that is beyond doubt or question and that every president and vice president follows simply because it’s the process.

Harry and Meghan. I have less than no interest in them other than that they convince me that the French’s attitude towards royals was about right. The real story which I haven’t seen mentioned is that they’re telling their truth not the truth. I have no doubt they are telling their truth but we have no way of determining its relation to actual events.

The debt ceiling. Once again, the real story is that this is the Congress’s fault. Either there should be no debt ceiling or Congress should be bound by it. Until 1917 and Congress’s Second Bond Act there was no problem.

George Santos. The real story is not that politicians lie, that George Santos is a fraud, or that he’s a Republican. The real story is that until the Supreme Court stuck its nose in the practice was that Congress could “limit its own membership”, i.e. it could refuse to seat people after they were elected. Now the Congress is in a pickle. There’s nothing it can actually do.

The war in Ukraine. IMO the real story is the fog of war. We have no real idea what’s going on. What we’re getting is propaganda from one side or another.